It's political theater, of course. But wouldn't the show work better if the script weren't circulated to the press in advance? Why not create the sense that there will be an actual meeting — a vivid exchange of ideas culled from real-life experience in different cities across the nation? Then afterwards, deliver what seems to be a surprising consensus that the new law will drive a wedge between the community and police and damage the trust that officers have worked to build over many years.

Where's the theatrical magic needed to induce the suspension of disbelief?

80 comments:

"Where's the theatrical magic needed to induce the suspension of disbelief?"

There was a time, but I'm way past trusting the sincerity of this administration. I really wanted to, but it turned out much worse than I even feared. I didn't want the change, but I had the hope. I only have fear left. The fear of hiring a contractor and then realizing that yours is his first job.

How about just fining employers who hire illegals. Seriously. Just fine them enough so they stop hiring illegals. A contractor picks up some Mexicans to do drywall, landscaping, etc., give him a fine. Make the burden on the employer to establish his workers are legal.

One of the Chiefs is from Huston. Perhaps he should be more concerned that an illegal alien was just convicted of murdering one of his officers in 2006. This is after being deported in 1998 and sneaking back in.

"Why not create the sense that there will be an actual meeting — a vivid exchange of ideas culled from real-life experience in different cities across the nation? Then afterwards, deliver what seems to be a surprising consensus that the new law will drive a wedge between the community and police and damage the trust that officers have worked to build over many years."

Why bother actually doing that when certain members of the press - who have signed on to the regime - will report the event as if it was spontaneous and not actually scripted bullshit propaganda?

When you have members of the press who have joined the junta to willingly spread the message of the regime, you don't need to do the footwork of actually building a real consensus.

You can just present a fake one.

These police are part of the ruling regime. They're organized into a public-employee union that negotiates itself obscene pay ... such as in Boston where cops routinely make $200,000 a year by extorting money from contractors and road construction companies.

They're the richly-paid armed enforcers of the Obama regime. Of course they're "concerned".

They might actually have to get up off their fat fucking asses and ... you know ... enforce our fucking laws.

Love the way you use the phrase, "suspension of disbelief". Captain Reynaud would kiss you on both cheeks.

Beyond that, we have a concern "that they worry the new law will 'drive a wedge' between the community and police, and damage the trust that officers have worked to build 'over many years'....". They have reason to worry. Consider this. Police are being used more for political reasons than I can ever recall. It won't end well.

It would help a lot, but it's like only punishing the guy receiving the stolen goods and not the thief. There will always be somewhere for some illegals to find work. The harder it is for them, the lower the wages and thus the more tempting to the employer. But practically, how do you know that guys you pick up at Home Depot are illegal if documents are not required? Most Latinos in my area are legal.

No matter what policy, we need to have the documents requirement or there are no legals or illegals.

As political theater, it's kind of desperate, isn't it? Does anyone besides Holder and Twinkletoes actually believe that a get-together of hand-picked politically appointed police chiefs will do anything to turn public opinion against the law?

Frankly, the whole "illegal immigrant problem" is a ginned-up, exaggerated fraud, meant to appeal to people's fears, racism, or other insecurities about the faltering state of our nation. It's more of the misdirection that those who wield power have always used--as a magician does to fool his audience into believing the unbelievable--to mislead us as to the real sources of our societal problems.

This is not to say there are no problems associated with illegal immigrants, but such as problem as they do present are as a gnat's bite compared to the apocalyptic danger we are told by the fear-mongerers that they represent. Blaming the indigent, the outcast, and the oppressed for their own misery is a centuries-old parlor trick, employed across all cultures.

Hagar: The ironic thing about Santa Fe being a sanctuary city for illegal aliens is that they can't afford to live there, or at the very least in any numbers as to create the type of problems the AZ law was designed to address.

The whole thought--let alone sight--of these dog & pony PR shows would be funny were it not so sickening. All such efforts by Obama and his minions may be filed under: Wolf, Thomas, "Mau-mauing the flack-catchers." From immigration, to the BP oil spill to Iran and Korea, ALL efforts by the Obama Administration have been, and continue to be, nothing but flack-catching exercises.

Blaming the indigent, the outcast, and the oppressed for their own misery is a centuries-old parlor trick, employed across all cultures.

That's complete crap - each country should be looking to help their own indigent, outcast etc - it is NOT America's job to help everyone's.

If it were not for the generous welfare state that America has built since the 1930s, then free immigration would only be a problem for those low-skilled workers (many of them black) who are undercut by low-wage illegals, and since they seem to vote monolithically for the Dems, I'd say it isn't a conservative problem. Unfortunately we do have this welfare state, and even Ben Bernecke cannot print enough money to offer it to the world. Maybe Mr. Cook likes living in a 3rd world shithole where there is plenty of stoop labor on hand, but I would prefer to cut my own grass in a country of free and prosperous men and women.

Well, of course illegal aliens can't actually live in Santa Fe. But they can certainly hang drywall or wash dishes in tres chic "Southwestern" restaraunts. And if the idiot gringos want to eat grilled prickley pears pads, that's all the more fun.

Interesting that our local chief of Police (Boulder CO) was using the exact rhetoric, the same words, a couple days ago. I usually believe more in a concurrence of opinion, whereby liberal types "just know" what to say, but when the words are exact, I'm inclined toward a circulating talking-points memo.

Well, I respect what the officers have to say, and would moreso if the officers talking to Holder represented a broad cross-section of Enforcement. But I suspect they have been cherry-picked for their views, because that's consistent with the ongoing political theater.

I suppose I could click the link to find out for sure, but I'm lazy today :)

Apparently Holder's lack of reading capacity extends beyond ignoring the text of statutes to not taking in memos from his boss, the President who recently said: "But the practice of listening to opposing views is essential for effective citizenship.”

i think this is clear evidence that Obama's team was not involved. Obama's people are *way* better at stage craft.

this is another example of the white house and the justice department not being on exactly the same page. If a top member of the Admin is asked to leave, I think it will be Holder. from the terrorist trials, to the 'nation of cowards,' to Miranda ... i think he will be the first to go. if he blunders border security by making the gov't response a political joke, then that will just add to this already long list.

I hate to suggest any level of agreement with Robert Cook but I would agree a large part of the political calculation around illegal immigration is fear. Its fear based on this crime, this crime wave across the border and many other heavily reported incidents. The fear unfortunately ignores the facts about crime, crime on the border and crime in the nearby urban centers where the drop houses and the illegal immigrants are concentrated.

Of course on the flip side the “fear mongering” of the left (“racism”, “racial profiling” etc) has been equally appalling. Given the rhetoric about the Arizona law can I assume that if the feds suddenly sent tens of thousands of ICE agents to the border to enforce the federal law it would also been seen as racist. In addition, the left persists in ignoring the broad public support in and outside of Arizona for such laws.

A nice summary of the heated and contradictory political rhetoric here.

How about just fining employers who hire illegals. Seriously. Just fine them enough so they stop hiring illegals. ... Make the burden on the employer to establish his workers are legal.

There's a huge problem with this approach. Actually, there are two huge problems. First, current federal law limits the steps an employer can take to verify someone's immigration status. With the last round of immigration reform (in the mid-80's), employers were required to collect certain documents as proof someone was eligible to work in the US. It's considered a civil rights violation for the employer to take any additional steps -- or even to question the validity of the proffered documents -- to determine someone's eligibility to work. Second, the reason current law limits what steps an employer can take to verify someone's status is a fear that employers will use the requirement to be here legally as an excuse to discriminate against Hispanics. It's a classic Catch-22 situation for employers: If they hire an illegal, it's because the employer cares nothing about the law and desires to maximize profits by hiring and exploiting illegals. If they don't hire someone because they believe the person is here illegally, it's because the employer is racist.

Until we can get an reliable instant computer check of immigration status, it's unfair to put employers in such a no-win situation.

This weekend a Chicagoan named Eduardo Caraballo was arrested in conjunction with a stolen car chase. He was held on bail as well as suspicion, by Chicago police, of being illegal.

His mother turned up with the bail money and his birth certificate. He also had an Illinois(?) drivers license.

The police refused to let him go because they thought he was illegal. They turned the documents over to ICE which thought they might have been forged. He was finally released on Monday.

This is being portrayed as some sort of vindication of all the folks who say the Arizona law is racist.

It is also being portrayed here in Puerto Rico as stupidity on the part of the Chicago cops who do not know that Puerto Ricans are natural born US citizens. Caraballo was born in PR but emigrated to the US when he was 8 months old.

On the other hand:

1) This happened in Obama's home town where the police are well know to be considerate of prisoner's rights. (Yeah, right)

2) The problem was not that the police and ICE did not know that Puerto Ricans are citizens. The problem is that the birth certificate apparently looked funky.

3)Had this happened in Arizona, ICE would not have been involved. The police are required by law to accept a drivers license as proof of citizenship.

4) In a comment on this somewhere someone suggested that the police were using citizenship as an excuse to hold him for the crime and that it is a bogus excuse.

5) Cong. Luis Gutierez, who makes Al SHarpton look like the soul of reasonableness is now involved. Caraballo is one of his constituents. Gutierez is fanning the flames for all it is worth. Gutierez claims (on the basis of his parents) to be Puerto Rican, though he has never lived here.

Overall, it seems that had this happened under the Arizona law instead of Chicago law, Caraballo would have been better off.

I also believe that we don't know what is going on here. Is Caraballo really a US citizen? Did this really happen as he and Gutierrez say?

Are they going to implore Holder to file Quo Warranto against Obama, challenging his eligibility for the office of POTUS?By what authority does he hold the office? He is clearly not a Natural Born Citizen (due to his father's Kenyan citizenship, and dual citizenship at birth, no matter if born in the White House)

I love your steadfast optimism, Danielle: "if he blunders border security by making the gov't response a political joke..."

I'd say he has ALREADY blundered and that the (federal) gov't response has long been a joke now being exposed as such by the uproar over Arizona's attempt to do what the fed's won't: actually enforce the law.

I know this post concerned the procedure of this political theater, but I have to comment on the predisposed position that comes out of this.

The wedge that drives the police from the people is not the enforcement of laws. People don't fear what they can control and changing laws (via legislation) is part of that. Reality is, police undermine themselves by abusing their power and refusing to enforce laws or discriminately enforcing laws does just that. That is the police taking the power from the people.

'Blaming the indigent, the outcast, and the oppressed for their own misery is a centuries-old parlor trick, employed across all cultures."

Actually we're blaming them for breaking our immigration laws.

Again, we have laws and regulations governing entry and residence into this country. If liberals believe that Mexicans, Central and South Americans are expected to be exempt from these laws then please just say so and provide a legal and logical explanation as to why that should be.

The question is a simple one but considering how I never get an answer to it speaks volumes.

I cited the Supreme court on many occasions (which far surpasses the letter from a FEC bearurocrat).The Venus (1814)Dred Scott (1854)Minor v. Happersett (1874)Wong Kim Ark (1898)Perkins v. Elg (1934)I can cite many more sources, but just to give you a taste, here from Minor v. Happersett:

"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."

Or The Venus (1814 as it directly quotes Vattel, only 27 years after ratification of the USC:

"Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says:

“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."

I hate to suggest any level of agreement with Robert Cook but I would agree a large part of the political calculation around illegal immigration is fear.

Is it possible that law abiding people simply expect that 10-15 million people to follow the immigration laws we have?

I mean if we're going to have any sense of national soveriegnty then either enforce the security of the border or declare an open border and let anyone who can set foot in the country automatic citizenship. Period, end of discussion. Pick one or other other but pick one.

sure Calypso Facto, its Obama and Holder's fault that even Bush couldnt get comprehensive immigration reform through ... is it really any surprise that it has come to this ? the only real surprise is that it has taken this long.

Why not create the sense that there will be an actual meeting — a vivid exchange of ideas culled from real-life experience in different cities across the nation?

Because they have no "real-life experience" to begin with on this matter...

Nobody's enforcing the federal immigration laws the way they were intended, and thus there isn't any empirical evidence available about this; the AZ law is intended to remedy that problem. Any opinion by the police chiefs of other cities is pure speculation at this point. They might as well say that you'll be deported for buying ice cream for your daughter without your papers, like our eminent HLS scholar in chief has opined.

The police chiefs have simply agreed to play kabuki to help the flailing administration look good, in return for a bargaining chip of increased funding if their states should ever choose to enact similar laws. The administration, of course, has no intention of doing anything about illegal immigration on a federal level, and the administration will back peddle on any agreement with the police chiefs if other states really do get serious about the problem. Which takes us back to square one. Immigration in a nutshell.

As to the usual "Bush did it too" refrain, I've already acknowledged that it's a long-standing problem (that has recently become more urgent). (And Bush's Attorney General has already been fired, so no point in beating that dead horse.) Holder's had 16 months...time to do something besides confusing law enforcement with racism.

I'm not saying we should allow noncitizens to stroll or fly across our boards unimpeded and be allowed to set up households unbothered. I'm saying the point of the false alarm raised about them is meant to distract us from the real cause of most of the ills facing our nation, mainly, the wealthy and powerful in government or corporate boardrooms who steal us blind and who claim ever greater power for themselves.

Thus is has always been: blame the powerless for the crimes of the powerful, focus public resentment in the wrong direction, and the real troublemakers are left untroubled to do their dirty deeds.

I'm not saying we should allow noncitizens to stroll or fly across our boards unimpeded and be allowed to set up households unbothered.

Except here you are, condemning as illegitimate the slightest attempts to enforce the law. By reacting so hysterically to what is in reality a modest enforcement measure, then, yes, that is what you are saying.

Let's remember: the massive media hysteria was all because of *opposition* to this law.

Robert Cook: Frankly, the whole "illegal immigrant problem" is a ginned-up, exaggerated fraud, meant to appeal to people's fears, racism, or other insecurities...

You neglected to insert a reference to "the Other", Robert. Any smug progressive finger-wagging about immigration worth its salt needs to have a reference to "ignorant fear of the Other", no matter how much other high-quality vacuous twaddle it contains.

I'm saying the point of the false alarm raised about them is meant to distract us from the real cause of most of the ills facing our nation, mainly, the wealthy and powerful in government or corporate boardrooms who steal us blind and who claim ever greater power for themselves.

Even if uncontrolled immigration and the kleptocrats were two separate problems, it's a fairly low-level mental feat for one mind to be able to recognize, and think clearly, about both of them, without distraction. I'm sorry it's an intellectual bridge too far for you, as indicated by your failure to see the obvious connection between the two. Do you think we'd have uncontrolled borders if this weren't to the benefit of the people "stealing us blind"? It didn't "just happen" because they were too busy looting the treasury to notice the border dissolving, dude.

I have a simple question: how were these "police chiefs from about a dozen cities" selected to discuss this important topic with AG Holder? Was it a blanket invitation? Was there a questionnaire or form to fill out, listing what each chief's view on the law was, and invitations issued based on the responses, perhaps?

Okay, and another one: Why invite them from anywhere but Arizona, for that matter? This law only affects that state, as far as I know. So why not invite ALL Arizona police chiefs instead? Could it be because the majority of law officials in AZ actually are in support of the law, so they had to reach farther afield in order to further the agenda that SB1070 is bad?

I'm getting REAL tired of this administration (actually, I've been tired of it since January 2009).

In the insurance industry, many states have what they call 'recipricol laws' or 'retaliatory provisions' which means if your state has higher form filing fees, capital/surplus requirements, licensing obligations, etc, then to do business in my state you follow your state's laws if they are more stringent than mine.

I think that's fair and perhaps we should have retaliatory immigration laws which means we will subject Mexican immigrants to the same laws as they impose on immigrants to their country.

Hoosier;no efforts at containing additional influx in the country, you have a problem. Do you honestly believe there have been NO efforts to contain additional immigrants.

FWIW, my position. I believe immigrants are a net positive for the country. That being said, yes there need to be controls on the borders.

I like the guest worker concept; I don't believe you're going to get 11 million people to march back across the border so yes I believe in a path to citizenship for some of those already here. And yes I understand the "unfairness" of that approach for those who came here legally.

As i've stated above I question motivations and public pronouncement of those from the left and the right.

And finally it must be said, we (the US) have been here before (see here, here, and here. Many other historical examples)

Do you think we'd have uncontrolled borders if this weren't to the benefit of the people "stealing us blind"? It didn't "just happen" because they were too busy looting the treasury to notice the border dissolving, dude."

Of course...where do I say otherwise? The ruling class is working us from both ends, and turning us against each other so our attention and anger is diverted away from them.

It benefits the plutocrats to have poor, illegal aliens available who will do dirty, hard, dangerous work for pennies, and who have no recourse to governmental protections against poor working conditions, and who do not cost the employer in social security wages, overtime, income tax deductions, workers comp, etc. It also benefits the plutocrats to have those poor, undocumented illegal aliens to raise alarms about in order to foster fear and resentment and hatred of them among working-class Americans, who are convinced to think the illegal aliens are stealing their livelihoods, when in fact all of us are victims together of the brutal human lawnmower.

It benefits the plutocrats to have poor, illegal aliens available who will do dirty, hard, dangerous work for pennies

Mr. Cook plays the opposites against the middle. So those on the right oppose illegal immigration because of their deep-seated racists tendencies or they secretly support it because they need cheap, oppressed labor (or are you suggesting on the "plutocrats" on the right believe this and the rest of the right is "deluded".)

Boy, now I really feel bad about agreeing with in any way, shape or form

Robert Cook: Of course...where do I say otherwise? The ruling class is working us from both ends, and turning us against each other so our attention and anger is diverted away from them.

Nice "wash, rinse, and repeat" there, Robert. Whose attention is being diverted from what, Robert? If you turn your attention to the, yes, *real* problems at the Arizona border are you no longer capable of comprehending the financial news? Who's this easily distractable "us" duking it out while ignoring the depredations of the fat cats?

Maybe those ignorant "blue color workers" who've got this bizarre notion that importing workers who "have no recourse to governmental protections against poor working conditions, and who do not cost the employer in social security wages, overtime, income tax deductions, workers comp" have some concrete effect on their wages or livelihoods? Why, it defies every tenet of economic science! Whoever heard of cheaper workers costing less than less cheap workers? It's racism-fueled crazy talk! Probably pick this crap up from talk radio. (Sheesh, Cook, even the nuttiest of open borders nutjob economists will admit that illegal immigration really is screwing lower-class Americans economically.)

Do you understand "proximate" and "ultimate" re causes of problems, Robert? No, "ultimate" does not mean "real" or "true", and "proximate" does not mean "false" or "an illusion consequent to being propagandized against one's own best interests". For example, if large numbers of illegal immigrants are straining local services to the limit, they are the *real* proximate cause of budget woes and a degradation of local living standards. Understanding that their migration was ultimately caused by the preferred policies of the klepto-class on both sides of the border doesn't put any more revenue in the coffers, nor does vaporing on about the alleged "racism" or ignorance of the people at the illegal immigration coal-face. (Talk about "distracting".) Those people are still faced with *real* problems, which they must work to solve "doing what they can, where they are, with what they've got" - like working to have the law enforced.

Hey, ever stop to think that maybe they've rationally arrived at the conclusion that enforcing immigration law will stick it to the brutal human lawnmower far more efficaciously than marching in solidarity with La Raza, sporting a jaunty Che beret? Nah, can't be. They're just a festering mass of false consciousness.

New H you are so right about cops:They're the richly-paid armed enforcers of the Obama regime. Of course they're "concerned".

They might actually have to get up off their fat fucking asses and ... you know ... enforce our fucking laws.And of course when they did try to enforce the laws that they were killed by anti-government hater Jerry Kane Jr. Go figure.

@TRO Especially the guy who just ordered 1200 troops to the border to stop the flow.

My husband wondered if he sent them down there to protect the illegals from the Arizonans.

I heard the police chief of Tucson was there?

The quote I heard today was that this law destroys the trust the police have built with the illegal community, and the crime rate will go up (?) and there will be more unsolved crimes because they won't have illegals coming to them with info.

On the other hand how about if there is more ID checking and more deportations there will be *less* illegals around to perpetrate crimes?

At the risk of being tedious, I too would like an answer to Hoosier Daddy's question:

Again, we have laws and regulations governing entry and residence into this country. If liberals believe that Mexicans, Central and South Americans are expected to be exempt from these laws then please just say so and provide a legal and logical explanation as to why that should be.

Another part of the immigration debate I like is when amnesty advocates acknowledge that privileging the rights of the undocumented is a slap in the face to the millions who are trying to immigrate legally. But BFD, right?